Judge says rules for Diana inquest are 'antiquated rubbish'

A High Court judge yesterday condemned the rules governing the inquest into the death of Princess Diana as "antiquated rubbish".

In an extraordinary outburst, Lord Justice Thomas said the rules are "wholly improper for the modern age" and demanded to know which Government minister was responsible for "this lamentable state of affairs".

The criticism came during a legal challenge to a key decision taken by coroner Lord Justice Scott Baker.

The coroner has ruled that statements made by members of the paparazzi, who were pursuing Diana on the night she died, can be read to the inquest jury, unchallenged.

The photographers have refused to appear at the inquest to give evidence and to submit to cross-examination and the French government has decided not to force them to appear.

But Mohamed Al Fayed - whose son Dodi died in the car crash along with Diana in 1997 - the Ritz Hotel in Paris, which is owned by Mr Al Fayed, and the family of his former employee, driver Henri Paul, are protesting that the coroner's decision is unlawful because it deprives them of the right to question the reliability and credibility of the photographers' evidence.

Richard Keen, QC, appearing for the Paul family, added that the problem with the paparazzi could also have a knock-on effect on other overseas witnesses in the case.

Among them, he suggested, could be Diana's former butler Paul Burrell, who lives in the U.S., and ex-spy Richard Tomlinson, whom Mr Al Fayed wants to call as a witness, to back up his claim that the Princess was murdered by MI6.

Scroll down for more...

Crash scene: The emegency services in action on the night of the fatal smash

Princess: Diana is pictured leaving the Ritz hotel on the night of the fatal crash

Mr Keen and Michael Beloff QC, appearing for the Ritz, asked Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Aikens to quash the coroner's decision - made on November 7 in the fifth week of the inquest - and declare that he is wrong in law.

The legal challenge centres on the meaning of Rule 37 of the 1984 Coroners' Rules, which allows written, rather than live, evidence to be admitted if it is "unlikely to be disputed" and if there are no objections from official "interested persons".

Mr Beloff argued that the controversial nature of the paparazzi evidence rendered the coroner's decision "contrary to law".

But Lord Justice Thomas rounded on the Coroners' Rules themselves and the politicians he accused of failing to reform them. He said: "It is shocking actually. No doubt everyone agrees this rule is hopeless.

"It is lamentable this has come about. Someone should be politically answerable for this."

He added: "How can you allow a major inquest to take place against a background of rules wholly improper for the modern age?

"There must be some minister responsible for this terrible state of affairs."